possible LotR connections

Dimensional · Post by **Dimensional** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 2:55 am

I've Got to agree with fable here - There is a wealth of great fantasy outthere which does not rely on Tolkein's work, Much of it ignored by publishers today. Which can make it hard to find and read if you don't know what it is you are looking for. Tolkein's middle earth is special because of the Huge volume of myths and backround which he produced to make his world real. (which i think conributed to the fact that his world view has been copied buy so many others.)
It is a feat which as far as I know has never been replicated by any other author.

Loredweller · Post by **Loredweller** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 3:42 am

Originally posted by Dimensional:

...
Tolkein's middle earth is special because of the Huge volume of myths and backround which he produced to make his world real. (which i think conributed to the fact that his world view has been copied buy so many others.)
It is a feat which as far as I know has never been replicated by any other author.

Hmm, IMHO it's a normal way for most of serious fantasy or fiction authors, isn't it? The background always should be large enough to hold the building, and there should always be something behind all you may only to guess - or the story fails.
L.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:34 am

Hmm, IMHO it's a normal way for most of serious fantasy or fiction authors, isn't it? The background always should be large enough to hold the building, and there should always be something behind all you may only to guess - or the story fails.

That's well expressed, Lordweller. Unfortunately, today's publications often consist of the mass-marketing of poorly paid hacks whose work is associated with AD&D--which means they don't require much knowledge about how to write a novel, or how to build the environment behind one. All they need to do is draw on a set of rules. Why pay for better writers, who might take longer and demand more money, when you get sell really poor stuff?

It is a feat which as far as I know has never been replicated by any other author.

Dimensional, that kind of all-inclusive background has been done by others besides Tolkien, but for a variety of reasons they aren't well known.

For instance, Fletcher Pratt, the great American historian of the American Civil War and Scandanavia, wrote The Well of the Unicorn. I think in its single, complex novel there's arguably more context that Tolkien provided--because Tolkien spent a fair amount of time on mood-building dialog pieces (in fact, the Frodo/Sam sections often drag into nothing but mood), and Pratt doesn't go that way.

ERR Eddison was a member of the same group as Tolkien. He's even less original, if possible, than his friend, but also more colorful and more flavorful in his use of language. He wrote three novels, but his masterpiece is The Worm Ouroboros: slow-moving and brilliant. (The chapter of the summoning by the evil king is a flat-out masterpiece of fantasy.) Where Tolkien was attracted to a host of northern European medieval sources, Eddison drew as well from the English Renaissance.

James Branch Cabell was an early 20th century Virginian with a very different view, both romantic and ironic. His writing style was colored by medieval French sources, of whose poetry and prose he was a master translator. He wrote 25 books(!) in one long series, detailing the history and descendants of two fictional characters, Dom Manuel and Jurgen. The prose is brilliant, the mind behind it, learned as all hell, the humor (when it occurs) excruciatingly funny. Talk about contextual depth: one of Cabell's books is nothing but a lineage for his two main characters! Cabell also focuses on a quality not found in Tolkien and Eddison: the sadness of evanescent pleasures taken by mortals.

Here's a brief sample of his prose:

"From what you tell us, Emperor Jurgen," said all the demons, "your wife was an acidulous shrew, and the sort of woman who believes that whatever she does is right."

"It was not a belief," says Jurgen: "it was a mania with the poor dear."

"By that fact, then, she is forever debarred from entering Hell."

"You tell me news," says Jurgen, "which if generally known would lead many husbands into vicious living."

"But it is notorious that people are saved by faith. And there is no strong faith than that of a bad-tempered woman in her own infallibility. Plainly this wife of yours is the sort of person who cannot be tolerated by anybody short of the angels. We deduce that your Empress must be in Heaven."

Cabell also had a sly way with sexual innuendo. It actually got what was probably his best book (and a favorite of Mark Twain), Jurgen, banned in New York City by the Society for the Prevention of Vice. It took a group of the most prominent writers and intellectuals of the day to take the matter to court, before the ban was lifted.

Then, there's the Gormenghast trilogy of Mervyn Peake. Personally, I've never liked it, but there's no denying it's a wonderfully oddball, completely unique fantasy world, incredibly deep and unlike any other. Think of what ****ens might have done if he had decided to create a series of novels peopled by nothing but the kind of strange side characters that occur in his works: that's the Gormenghast trilogy.

Then, there's the Lankhmar group of fantasy novels by the great Fritz Leiber, with that pair of highly flawed, disreputable and thoroughly likeable heroes, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. They read so easily that it's simple to overlook all the depth Leiber packed in them; but if you spend time concentrating on the narrative and descriptions, you soon realize this is a fully developed universe with its own series of social mores, political relationships, weather patterns, overarching themes, etc. There were six, I think, all structured as a series of short interlocking stories or novellas, and all but the last can be highly recommended.

Dimensional · Post by **Dimensional** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:56 am

Thanks Fable

I have never heard of or seen Pratt or Cabell
hae read some Eddison though, and enjoyed it .

However my initial point about tolkeins bacround and mythology still stands while most fantasy writers do set up and create believable backrounds and worlds for their stories Tolkein went into detail far beyond what is normal. his backround and mythology are also completly consistant,

i can't quite express what i am trying to say to my satisfaction, but it is somthing like his mythology while it is based on many european archetypes suports and is logicaly consistant with the cultures and languages from which the books purport they come from.
they are believable and hold up to analysis from thoughs who study and look at the development of myths and legends in the real world. (I did some reasearch in to this a couple of years ago, i will look and see if i can find some of the book i read )

despite all i have said in defense of Tolkein I still enjoyed and think very highly of some his conteperaries and predesessors. the whole fantasy genre could do with more authors looking away from Tolkein and finding their own insparation. There are far to many mass market hacks out there.

as an exercise who would you recomend to some one trying to get a feel of the genre as a whole and where it has come from. i know I am missing soem names - as your previous posts have confirmed.

Thanks

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:08 am

However my initial point about tolkeins bacround and mythology still stands while most fantasy writers do set up and create believable backrounds and worlds for their stories Tolkein went into detail far beyond what is normal. his backround and mythology are also completly consistant,

Dimensional, I know what you mean, and I wasn't contradicting you, above. I was just suggesting some possibilities to extend that experience. I enjoy getting hints for as much, elsewhere, and some long dead critics and writers have given me many leads that have led to profitable hours spent in great books I'd otherwise never have discovered.

About Tolkien: I think he has great virtues and great flaws as a writer. He was a brilliant craftsman from earlier materials. He had a great sense of the use and manipulation of English, within a limited pastoral framework. He was a master of the music of English. He was a great literary architect, and knew how to build and pace a huge novel naturally. His larger than life characters have a mythic appeal. His sense of atmosphere is strong. He knows and uses the right word at all times: a rare virtue.

He also has recourse to deus ex machinas all too often (Gandalf's reappearance; the multiple rescues by eagle; etc). He had no knowledge of, or interest in, combat, even though he uses it: he just gives a vague sense of what's going on, and concentrates on a few people's activities. His notion that "the average people must be protected from the horrors of reality" makes me sick to my stomach; and that same opinion still underscores much of politics in many lands, I'm afraid. His villians tend to ridiculous stereotypes, especially the lesser ones: I still can't forget the orcs sneering at Frodo in standard English public school fashion, "He can't take his medicine."

On a lighter note, I also don't care for his universal way of depicting specific races; but that may be because I know the nasty shadow of the Edwardian background Tolkien derived from. It's the same one that fostered a whole ton of books (including some by the likes of GK Chesterton and Arthur Conan Doyle--but not his Sherlock Holmes series) in which individuals are all depicted, positively or negatively, by supposed hereditary groups: all Russians were subtle and violence prone, all Jews were envious and spiteful of their "betters," all Celtic types were noble and fearless, etc. And there is *some* of that left under the skin of Tolkien's books. An isolated elf or dwarf (Gimli, for example) may be different, but only to point to the uniformity of all the others. Damn it, I wanted elves with adenoid problems! Beautiful, sensitive dwarven priestesses!

That's my take on Tolkien, at any rate. I like him for what he is, and I've read his trilogy three times through. I admit, I prefer some other fantasy authors; but everybody has their favorites. And to tell the truth, I'll probably reread LOTR someday, though I'll gag on Tolkien's class divisions.

siber · Post by **siber** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:10 am

Fable: You may well like or approve of all the material you mentioned, but how many other people do? Everyone has different opinion's and even if they haven't read every fantasy book ever written, that doesn't mean they're not entitled to their opinion, nor make their opinion right or wrong. No offense here..but without going into too much detail..some of the work you mentioned..i mean you really don't need to read alot of that stuff to be a true fantasy fan. In fact i would say some of it absolute rubbish...but that's just IMHO.

How many fantasy writer's have _created_ a world with as much depth as tolkien. Middle earth,beleriand,valinor and numenor in detail and all their history, as well as many other realms and races that he didn't describe or write about in as great detail as the other's. Really, LOTR only gives a small insight into this world, and to really appreciate the scope of it, one need's to read the hobbit, LOTR, silmarillion, and probably most of his other book's concering Middle earth, Beleriand, Valinor and Numenor, including the lost tales books and the history of middle earth books.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: siber ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:35 am

Siber writes:

Fable: You may well like or approve of all the material you mentioned, but how many other people do? Everyone has different opinion's and even if they haven't read every fantasy book ever written, that doesn't mean they're not entitled to their opinion,

(blink) Where did I write or indicate I thought otherwise, Siber? I did the exact opposite. It's been said only Tolkien did this, only Tolkien did that, and I've written that this is only the opinion of some posters; I wish to disagree. I don't deny that everybody is entitled to their own opinion on this, and frankly, we're all right. Is that wrong? Am I not, to quote you, entitled to my own opinion, to feeling that Tolkien isn't the end of the world?

I didn't write, "Tolkien has these positive and negative qualities." I wrote: "About Tolkien: I think he has great virtues and great flaws as a writer." I *think.* I gave my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with it, but I would appreciate your not painting me as some overlord type when I'm just a single person trying to politely express my views.

No offense here..but without going into too much detail..some of the work you mentioned..i mean you really don't need to read alot of that stuff to be a true fantasy fan. In fact i would say some of it absolute rubbish...but that's just IMHO.

None taken. But could you post details? Which of the works that I mentioned were absolute rubbish, and why? I don't mind discussing the relative merits of books with people who've read 'em.

How many fantasy writer's have _created_ a world with as much depth as tolkien. Middle earth,beleriand,valinor and numenor in detail and all their history, as well as many other realms and races that he didn't describe or write about in as great detail as the other's.

We're back where we started, y'see. I gave some examples of people who did just this--Cabell with his 25-volume work, for instance--and you choose to ask the question again. If you don't want to hear any suggestions as answers, you shouldn't post the question.

Really, LOTR only gives a small insight into this world, and to really appreciate the scope of it, one need's to read the hobbit, LOTR, silmarillion, and probably most of his other book's concering Middle earth, Beleriand, Valinor and Numenor, including the lost tales books and the history of middle earth books.

Yes, and I read and reviewed most of 'em in print (I was too young to hit the LOTR and The Hobbit for review when they first appeared) when they showed up. Frankly, much of Tolkien's additional stuff was never intended to be published: they were background papers which he used to create his novels. Many of the best authors do this; very few have theirs published. So the point is kind of moot. All that background is actually done a lot, but unless you have access to the private papers of the best fiction writers (Zelazny's, for instance, are up in the Syracuse University archives, and open to inspection to people working on disertations), you can't really see all the work that was done.

But like I wrote when another poster was wondering about good books that show a great deal of research and detail, others have done so. You want detail? There's more actual buried wealth of historical detail on Denmark, the medieval German states and the Hansa in Pratt's The Well of the Unicorn than in any other group of fantasy novels I've encountered, IMO. Hell, Pratt even briefly includes the latin text of a popular Danish song of the 14th century. Yet it functions as superb fantasy literature, as well.

Them's my opinions. I don't mind disagreement, in fact, if you don't mind me saying so, I think we're all correct. But if you *do* mind my disagreeing, I'm afraid you're wrong.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:59 am

I think I should explain that I'm a strong believer in the idea that people can express completely opposing views and still be correct. I feel that was very strongly about religion, politics, and just about everything else. There are multiple solutions to everything, and my delight in people derives, in part, from the fact experiences and opinions differ so firmly. It would be a boring and foul world where everybody agreed with me.

And no, I'm not getting defensive. That isn't why I wrote this, and keep away from me!

Nighthawk · Post by **Nighthawk** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 10:49 am

Originally posted by fable:
With respect, Nighthawk, if you don't know the major names in fantasy (both best-selling, and best in quality) of the periods in question--and they were the best, every anthology will agree to this, and the literature they wrote will shout this to you--how can you make this judgement?

I have to admit that although I have read practically every Newbury award winner ever my older sci-fi/fantasy is mostly limited to authors like Heinlien and Asimov, both which are sci-fi rather than fantasy. Not much written between 1940 and 1970...however, I saw Tolkiens influence in a lot of books long before *I* knew anything about D&D.

...and virtually none of that fantasy-writing lot ever paid the slightest attention to Tolkien with the exception of two of his close acquaintances and friends: ERR Eddison, and CS Lewis. And Lewis' elves owe nothing to Tolkien, while Eddison never used elves.
...
CS Lewis' Narnia series. (I don't like 'em, but many people do, and his elves again owe nothing to Tolkien.)

Would you mind listing all the elves Lewis ever writes about? There is 1 in Narnia but I don't think he actually calls it an elf. There are other creatures that could arguably be called elves, but they are minor parts of the story. There are none in his space trilogy. 'Till We Have Faces doesn't have them. Most of his other books are either non-fiction (The Four Loves, The Business of Heaven, Surprised by Joy) or based on real-world-like people (Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce).

Certainly there are a great number of pre-TSR books whose elves owe nothing to Tolkien. There are also a lot of non-TSR related books whose authors owe a great deal to Tolkien...although I would have to do a little research to figure out when they were written and if they actually fall pre-TSR. Just because certain authors don't use his concepts doesn't mean others don't. I would agree that his influence has been much more common during the same time D&D has existed, but hardly think D&D deserves the credit.

Nighthawk · Post by **Nighthawk** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 10:59 am

Originally posted by Loredweller:
Hmm, IMHO it's a normal way for most of serious fantasy or fiction authors, isn't it? The background always should be large enough to hold the building, and there should always be something behind all you may only to guess - or the story fails.
L.

Yes and no. Most authors don't have the skill, much less take the effort to construct multiple entire languages and the cultures behind them in creating thier worlds. Tolkien's elven languages were developed to the point they could almost be used in an actual conversation. Dwarven tongues are only a little less developed than the elven. Men of Rohan speak old english. The languages that he uses make it very difficult to translate his works and maintain the same feel.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 11:47 am

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 11:47 am

Would you mind listing all the elves Lewis ever writes about? There is 1 in Narnia but I don't think he actually calls it an elf. There are other creatures that could arguably be called elves, but they are minor parts of the story.

There is an elf who is an important minor character in The Lion and the Wardrobe, though his name escapes me. As to they're being minor, that begs the point. Your remark was--

Consider ANY fantasy novel where elves are something other than pixies and you can see his influence there.

...and I responded by pointing out several authors of Tolkien's period, such as Lewis, who included non-pixyish Elves that didn't fit your all-encompassing statement.

There are also a lot of non-TSR related books whose authors owe a great deal to Tolkien...although I would have to do a little research to figure out when they were written and if they actually fall pre-TSR.

I know there are, but we're discussing the period in which Tolkien wrote, and up until about 1975. During that period, I honestly can't come up with a single work that was strongly influenced by Tolkien. I thought I had one earlier today--a work which I consider a awful bit of plagirism on Tolkien, The Sword of Shanara--but it didn't show up until around 1978, when I first reviewed it. And it was the author's first work, so it doesn't qualify for the right date or leading authors.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 11:57 am

Men of Rohan speak old english.

Here's a very good, famous example of Old English, in excerpt:

Nu ne wandode ic na minum sceattum, @a hwile @e eow unfri% on handa stold: nu ic mid godes fulltume h*t totwaemde mid minum scattum. @a cydde wel licode: and @a for ic me sylf mid @am mannum hearn of com: and @*t haebbe mid godes fultume forene forfangen...

(I've had to substitute @, % and * for letters that used to exist.)

That's Old English. It's part of an important document created by King Cnut, in 1020.

Here's Middle English:

Henri, bur@ Godes fultume King on Englene-loande, Lhoauerd on Yrloande, Duk on Normandi, on Aquitaine, and Eorl on Aniow, send igretinge to alle hise holde, ilaerde and ileawede, on Huntendoneschire. %*t witen @e wel alle h%t we willen and vnnen #%t, #%t vre raedesmen alle, o@er @e moare dael of heom, @aet beo@ ichosen bur! us and bur! @aet...

That bit of Middle English comes from 1258, under Henry III.

The Rohan riders only speak a nicely antique-flavored English that Tolkien gave 'em for atmosphere.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Loredweller · Post by **Loredweller** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 12:07 pm

BTW, why only elves? See Tolkien's goblins and orcs. IMHO, approach should be complex

In Tolkien's world they cannot be separated, so is there reminiscences of it in other works observed? It might serve as criteria if not solve the whole question.
TIA,
L.

Loredweller · Post by **Loredweller** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 12:15 pm

Originally posted by fable:


The Rohan riders only speak a nicely antique-flavored English that Tolkien gave 'em for atmosphere.

Just wonder what English

. IMHO, in those times there are two languages in England - one of nobles (Norman), another of Saxons. I believe the written texts all were in noble language, it took a bit to it to become one nation with one language. Though, in general Fable is right, of course

L.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 12:16 pm

BTW, why only elves? See Tolkien's goblins and orcs. IMHO, approach should be complex In Tolkien's world they cannot be separated, so is there reminiscences of it in other works observed? It might serve as criteria if not solve the whole question.

Best thing I can suggest is to check the early works of Lord Dunsany. That was the guy whom Tolkien based his elves and dwarves, etc, on--but especially those elves.

A lot of the other creatures in AD&D come from all over the place. You know, it might make a fascinating topic area, discussing that stuff.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 12:27 pm

IMHO, in those times there are two languages in England - one of nobles (Norman), another of Saxons.

Yep. Actually, there were, in a sense, three English languages--

Latin, used by all clerics (even those of the nobility, since they were RCC-trained);

French, used by the nobility (Henry II, for instance, used to refer to himself as "Count of Normandy, King of England" because he considered England a rustic backwater, while he really wanted that French throne);

and Old English (used by the grumbling Saxons until they intermarried with the Normans, and everybody became English, and they could go hunt the Scottish and the Irish).

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 1:04 pm

Aren't Tolkien's Orcs and Goblins the same thing or are they different. In the Hobbit the creatures of the mountains were called Goblins but in LotR they were called Orcs. Are they the same things? Tolkien also metioned Stone Giants and Hobgoblins in paragraphs in the Hobbit. He used almost all the elven races in the Simarllion.

Loredweller · Post by **Loredweller** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 1:30 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
Aren't Tolkien's Orcs and Goblins the same thing or are they different. In the Hobbit the creatures of the mountains were called Goblins but in LotR they were called Orcs. Are they the same things? Tolkien also metioned Stone Giants and Hobgoblins in paragraphs in the Hobbit. He used almost all the elven races in the Simarllion.

As it is stated in the Hobbit, orcs are the variety of goblins (in Tolkien's world).
L.

Busta_Bradimus · Post by **Busta_Bradimus** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:31 pm

I think the thing that this all comes down to taking from the original statement. Yes there are gonna be similarities between most fantasy books becasue they started off building from folklore and myths and beliefs of different societies around the world. Thes beliefes have been interpeted and change a bit for people to write stories with characters and creatures like the ones of ancient myths. Names have been changed and changed again this is just one more process with which to get the stories out. The next generation will draw upon the fantasy out there now and edit names and creatures to what they see fit.

Never is a story and its characters going to be totally original. Authors could only do this with no influence at all and all by themselves. These writers are all going to take and sample from their favorite fantasy publications and I believe this is how we get our wide diversity in fantasy books. Everyone takes all the original creatures and alters them slightly leaving behind the original and also leaving behind something new. This is why the fantasy world has similar things but also has such different.

Well thats what I think but unn..